The Instigator
CAHAL101
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
philochristos
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

is there a jesus christ

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
philochristos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 518 times Debate No: 76369
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

CAHAL101

Pro

yes there is a Jesus Christ the son of man who lived this earth and rose on the third day here is some evidence to prove it
http://www.mercatornet.com...
philochristos

Con

I'm going to play devil's advocate. I really don't take Jesus mythicism seriously at all, but I thought it might be a challenge to try to defend it. Well, actually, since the burden of proof isn't on me, I'm not going to try to prove that Jesus didn't exist. I'm just going to try to debunk whatever arguments Pro gives to show that Jesus did exist. I think there are pretty good arguments to that affect, so this could be interesting.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
CAHAL101

Pro

As always thank you philochristos for debating with me good luck

ok now back Jesus Christ the king of kings walked this world for some time and died for us and there is proof that Jesus did exist http://www.livescience.com... you must look at all 7 if you look these up
philochristos

Con

The link Pro gave as evidence for the existence of Jesus is an article that discusses seven pieces of evidence that have supposedly been used at one time or another to substantiate the claim that Jesus existed. But the article doesn't claim these items of evidence actually support Jesus' existence. Rather, it claims that they are all contested. So the article doesn't really support the existence of Jesus.

But let's look at these seven items of evidence anyway.

1. The Shroud of Turin

As the article says, the Shroud of Turin dates to the 14th century, not the time of Christ, so it does not support the existence of Jesus.

2. Pieces of the cross

As the article says, there is far more material that people have claimed is part of the cross Jesus was crucified on than his cross could possibly have contained. So we know that at least most of this material is not really from that cross. Since there's no way to tell what is and what isn't, we can't be sure that any of that material comes from Jesus' cross. So none of that material serves as evidence that Jesus existed.

3. Nails of Jesus

The article mentions some nails that were found in a tomb in Jerusalem, and some guy made a documentary claiming they were the very nails used to crucify Jesus. But there's no evidence that these are those nails, and there's nothing in the article to suggest that they were apart from somebody claiming they were.

4. The Dead Sea Scrolls

I've actually read a translation of the complete dead sea scrolls, which was translated by Geza Vermes. There is no mention of Jesus in any of those documents. There is mention of a "teacher of righteousness," but there's no reason in the world to think this is a reference to Jesus.

5. Metal books

These article mentions some metal books that were supposedly found in Jordan that contain a picture of Jesus. But the article says they are fakes produced within the last 50 years.

6. Crown of thorns

There are various supposed pieces of Jesus' thorn crown spread across Europe, but no evidence that any of it was actually worn by a supposed historical Jesus. This piece of evidence is just a lacking in value as the supposed pieces of Jesus' cross.

7. The gospels

This is actually the only piece of evidence worth considering in the list. The article claims that the gospels were written by disciples of Jesus. But in reality, the gospels are anonymous. Nobody knows who wrote them. And even if Mark and Luke did write the gospels attributed to them, they weren't disciples of Jesus. Matthew's gospel used Mark as a source, so it's unlikely it was written by the disciple, Matthew. John's gospel was written in the 90's when all or most of the disciples were already dead, and we can't be sure he wrote it.

But besides that, why think the gospels are recording history anyway? Using the gospels to prove Jesus existed is like using Lord of the Rings to prove Bilbo existed. Lots of religious texts just tell stories of mythological people. The books of the dead tell stories about Isis and Osiris. The Illiad tells stories about Agamemnon and Paris. There's no reason to think any of these people existed.

The article also makes an argument from authority. It quotes Marcus Borg who was a prominent member of the Jesus Seminar saying that Jesus existed and that most scholars agree. Well, scholars can be wrong, and if concensus were enough to establish a case, there'd be no debate. Richard Carrier is a bonafide scholar, and he thinks Jesus did not exist. Robert Price also thinks Jesus did not exist. So we need more than Borg's say so. We need to see the actual evidence. So far, we haven't seen it.

Debate Round No. 2
CAHAL101

Pro

and again thank you for your time for debating with me

this all goes back to GOD the divine being so he sent down his son to help us and but dieing for us he did this so we could be with him for all eternity and there have been people who have seen him like Colton the kid who went to heaven and saw everything and at the end of the movie there was a girl who made a picture of Jesus the Nazareth with them two there is prof that Jesus was here on earth and did die for us so his sheep ( that's us ) would be with him forever our body's stay but our soles will be with the Son of GOD

vote for Pro :D
philochristos

Con


Pro dropped all seven of his arguments for Jesus from the previous round and brought up a new argument in this round. In this round, he says there's a movie about "Colton the kid" who went to heaven and "a girl" who made a picture of Jesus, and this is supposedly evidence that Jesus really existed. I don't see how it is, though. I recently saw a movie about Thor, Captain America, and Tony Stark, but those people don't even exist. So I don't see how a movie proves Jesus existed. I saw a movie last night called _Bedazzled_ about the devil (played by Elizabeth Hurley) and Eliot Richards (played by Brendon Fraser), but I don't see any reason to think it was based on real people.


Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
===============================================================
>Reported vote: SlenderKitty // Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: There is no Jesus Christ. Con actually gave many arguments, which Pro did not refute.

[*Reason for removal*] Vote bomb based on personal opinion.
==============================================================
Posted by CAHAL101 1 year ago
CAHAL101
ok
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
Yeah, I've already committed to the debate, so I'm going to finish it.
Posted by CAHAL101 1 year ago
CAHAL101
so you not going to try to debate no ?
Posted by CAHAL101 1 year ago
CAHAL101
im saying that there is a jesus
Posted by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
Yeah, if you want to be persnickety, but I'm not going to go there.
Posted by Envisage 1 year ago
Envisage
Whether Jesus did or didn't exist doesn't matter... This resolution is about the here and now, lol.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 1 year ago
Benshapiro
CAHAL101philochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't respond to Con's counter arguments explaining why Jesus' existence is inconclusive. As such, Pro fails to uphold his claim and the debate goes to Con.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
CAHAL101philochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: As con mentioned in the last round, all 7 arguments were dropped by Pro. Not to mention that instead of making real arguments, Pro only provided 1 link each round and said that that was their evidence. Due to Pro's lack of original arguments [that weren't just links to other pages,] and their dropping all of Con's arguments in round 2, arguments to Con. Sources were only used by Pro.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
CAHAL101philochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G to Con, because Pro did not use punctuation, which hurt readability. Pro relied entirely on an external source to make his R2 argument, and didn't even discuss or mention them directly. Essentially, Pro did not even make an argument; just referenced a site. Con addressed each of these externally made arguments and rebutted each one, after which, Pro dropped the arguments. In R3, Pro's new argument is totally unsupported. Arguments to Con. Pro cited some websites, but they were not used in his arguments and thus, were not sources.